- From: Robert Green <rgqld@iinet.net.au>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:32:56 +1000
- To: public-webapps@w3.org
I wish to comment on the recommendation that NodeLists returned by the selectors API will be static. I feel this removes one of the great benefits of live collections, that is, that once a collection is created, it is automatically updated by the browser itself. This provides the possibility of creating a collection once and reusing it without having to create it again. If the static NodeList model is maintained, it either means that the NodeList will have to be re-created every time a function wishes to access it, or separate native functions will have to be written to update the collection as the document is modified. The second approach is clearly less than optimal as there may be functions modifying the document that the native methods aren't aware of. I suspect there are two motivations for the choice of static collections: 1. A number of popular javascript libraries have selector APIs that return static arrays, therefore a change to live collections would place them at a disadvantage 2. Novice script writers are confused by live collections In regard to the first issue, I believe it can be worked around quite simply by those libraries providing an option to return live or static collections. Then users have the choice of which type they want. For the second issue, it is a matter of user (i.e. script programmer) education. The current libraries hide live collections behind APIs that return static collections, often novices start out using a library and are never exposed to live NodeLists. Also, there are only a limited number of live collections and their use has not been greatly exploited. I have been told that the reason for not having live collections is for performance, but I find that hard to understand. The current live collections are much faster than their native javascript emulations, I can't see that getting a collection every time it is required will be faster than getting it once and using it many times. For your consideration. Robert Green
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 12:40:43 UTC